Summary
In a prominent newspaper article, chief Palestinian negotiator
Saeb Erekat implies that the concept of a ‘Jewish
state’ ought to be “left to be negotiated”
between the parties. This view is inconsistent with his
professed support for a ‘two-state solution’,
and reveals the ideological extremism of so-called Palestinian
“moderates”.

President Bush and Israel’s Disengagement Plan

On April 14 2004, President Bush expressed his support for
Israel’s unilateral disengagement plan. The President
stated that as part of a long-term peace agreement, Palestinian
refugees should enjoy a ‘right of return’, but only
to a future Palestinian state, and not to Israel itself. This
statement provoked an outcry from Palestinian and Arab leaders,
and from many politicians and commentators elsewhere.

Saeb Erekat in the Washington Post condemns the USA
and Israel

Saeb Erekat, chief PLO negotiator and well-known Palestinian
spokesman, attacked US and Israeli policy fiercely in an article
in the Washington Post (25 April 2004). In relation to the Palestinian
‘right of return’ he wrote:

“It is mind-boggling that a president who supports equality
and non-discrimination would dismiss the rights of Christian
and Muslim refugees to return to their homes in the “Jewish
state” [Erekat’s inverted commas] – a term
often repeated but never defined or even left to the parties
to negotiate” [our underlining].

The Jewish State As A Negotiable Concept

Saeb Erekat is in effect saying that it is racist not to agree
to Palestinians settling in Israel, and “mind-boggling”
for a US president to support Israel’s position on this.
He implies that because the concept of the “Jewish State”
is used to justify preventing the Palestinian return, that concept
ought to be “negotiated”, and presumably diluted
in some way.

Our Conclusions: The Right of Return as an Extreme,
Rejectionist Demand

Elsewhere in his article, Erekat describes himself as a “moderate”,
and claims to be in favour of a “two-state solution”
and “reconciliation”. The problem is that his views
are contradictory. In the same breath he demands an open-ended
‘right of return’ for Palestinians into Israel,
and questions the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, yet
describes himself as “moderate”.

The “right of return” is always presented by Palestinian
spokespeople in moderate, humanitarian terms. But it conceals
an intolerant and rejectionist agenda, namely the undermining
of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.

Erekat’s comments reveal the ideological extremism of
so-called Palestinian moderates. And they demonstrate the core
of the conflict: that the Palestinian movement has simply not
come to terms with the legitimacy of the State of Israel as
a homeland for the Jewish people. Nor have the Palestinians
made the historic compromises needed to achieve coexistence
with Israel.